NCAA Selection Committee Q&A with Jeff Jarnecke

In the wake of early May's tumultuous reaction to the NCAA Tournament selection, IL reached out to NCAA representative Jeff Jarnecke for some clarity in the process for picking teams — who picks, how they pick and how, if there was a strong push to do so, the criteria could be changed.

Additionally, Inside Lacrosse has learned that VMI coach Brian Anken will replace Tony Seaman on the DI Men's Lacrosse Selection/Championship committee as Seaman's four-year team ended after the 2012 season. Anken joins Loyola's Charley Toomey as the second coach on the five-person committee. The other three members are Heather Lyke, an associate athletic director from Ohio State, Ellen Crandall, an associate athletic director at Hartford, and Jim Siedliski, Big East Associate Commissioner for Olympic Sports.

TF: Do think there will be a change in the ordering, streamlining, or altering of the NCAA Tournament DI selection criteria before 2013?
JJ: I think there is an opportunity for that. I think the men’s lacrosse committee will absolutely listen to the membership throughout the summer and on through the December [IMLCA] meetings where we meet with the coaches association and we discuss. A matter of fact, I think it was two years ago we discussed eliminating the coaches from the sport committee altogether, and the membership wasn’t in favor of that.

We also asked whether we should we go straight RPI like a few other sports do and take that approach and eliminate any subjectivity to the criteria, and the coaches membership wasn’t in favor of that either.

We are open to suggestions, we are open to ideas. We are open to how the membership would like to see that handled. Is there opportunity for change? Without question. We will get there with some level of consensus and understanding from the coaching membership. We are also prepared as a committee to look at the composition of the RPI and the role of strength of schedule in both conference and non-conference as it relates to not only the selection criteria, but also the seeding process.

TF: Can you give a little more of an idea of what the process is for changing the selection criteria? You referenced the summer meetings and the winter meetings. Is the criteria part of the two-year rule cycle?
JJ: It is not. The sport committee can change the selection criteria as they deem appropriate. The sport committee has the oversight over the selection criteria. So they can suggest any sort of change they want to and then those suggestions are advanced to the Division I sports management and championship cabinet. And then the cabinet ultimately is the decision-making authority to either affirm or deny that change in the selection criteria.

TF: Is there a strict period of time in which they can do that?
JJ: No, there is not.

TF: So you could propose selection criteria changes in the December meeting and have it be implemented in the 2013 season if that were seen fit?
JJ: It could be. There are a couple of pieces to that. So what the championship committee likes to do and the logic behind it is that if we were to move something forward for the committee and for the cabinet to consider in their September meeting, they usually like a year delay in implementing that to allow institutions to review that and schedule accordingly, or at least have the opportunity to schedule accordingly.

And the other piece of that is the cabinet likes to look for feedback from the membership to see if they support that sort of change — or they don’t support the change — and the rational related to those decisions.

TF: So a reasonable timeline for this, if there were going to be a change, is that it’s discussed this summer and potentially in September but wont be advanced to the championship and sport committee until after the IMLCA convention in December so that would put it on the following September meeting to implement for the 2014 calendar?
JJ: There are a couple of things that come into play there. The committee meeting is at the end of July and the committee will look at the composition of the RPI and all those different elements. We could go to the membership in the form of a survey, conduct that some time in September or October and then have all that feedback and discuss it at the December coaches meeting.

Then the cabinet meets with more regularity — quarterly for the most part — and then we could still move another supplement forward in February of 2013 and look for that to either be effective with the following year, or even put in a delay so it could be for the 2013-14 academic year.

TF: Can you clarify how RPI is actually used in this criteria?
JJ: It is absolutely a selection criteria. We place value on the RPI and we don’t give definite preference to one category over another, meaning that we don’t put specific weight that RPI accounts for the eighth measure, so it's less important than strength of schedule, for example. They are all valued equally in that regard.

But as you know the subjectivity is applied and this year there was an emphasis and focus in many instances on the strength of schedule, especially how it relates to seeding more than the selection itself.

TF: Some people have mentioned how the non-conference strength of schedule is not really enumerated in the selection criteria. How do you interpret what is enumerated and what there is leeway on?
JJ: SOS is SOS. We do have both numbers that the committee has available, so we know both their overall SOS and their non-conference SOS as well. We don’t strictly define that it is only overall SOS so the committee has the ability to consider both of those numbers.

TF: What is the process for determining who is on the committee? And how does the rotation work? How were the two new members determined?
JJ: The process is that the sport of lacrosse is divided into five specific regions and of that, individuals can either nominate themselves or be nominated by others or their conference. Those nominations are then forwarded to the nominating committee for Division I, which is a different committee altogether, that looks at those and looks at different factors, different demographics and composition — if we need an administrator, or if we need a coach. There are five positions, and we can only have two or fewer coaches on the committee. They select those individuals for a four-year term. It just so happens to be that two members on our committee came on at the same time; that's why we had two vacancies. With another member rotating off this year, we will then add another member next year.

TF: How is the chair determined?
JJ: The chair is voted on by the members of the committee.

TF: Is there a mechanism on how the NCAA handles or deals with any personal or professional conflicts of interest? Is it of a concern?
JJ: We are very concerned. In fact, we require all members of the committee to disclose any personal or professional conflicts of interest they may have. And that could either inhibit them from voting or actually inhibit them from being selected to the sport committee. In that regard, the sport committee would have oversight of that relationship. We are well aware of those relationships, but we also realize that these relationships to exist among the coaching body and membership and that is not necessarily a factor that we use to discredit any membership or participation on the committee.